Re: [asa] Slug

On 6/14/06, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
> I think you are making the mistake I call the all or nothing fallacy. In
> order to tell the truth, one doesn't have to tell ALL the truth. If the
> account merely said the earth was old, and out of the earth came life, then
> you have a true but incomplete account. I don't know why people continually
> try to use the argument that if God didn't write a physics book, he was
> lying. Life and communication isn't of that nature.
>
> Because you see things as the all or nothing fallacy, you cast this
> problem in the most extreme form "unless you have a Bible that provides a
> complete scientific revelation, " . That simply isn't the case. The
> traditional interpretations have God getting EVERYTHING wrong and nothing
> right. And the accommodationalists say "So what?"
>
> Over and over I have used the car wreck to try to illustrate the problem.
> One can say that the red car hit the blue car and you have a simple AND TRUE
> description of the wreck. There is no need to talk about quantum physics and
> molecular forces. (for some reason people don't think about this
> illustration posted numerous times here on this list). Similarly, God could
> have inspired the writer to say "out of the slime came life" and you would
> have a basically true scientific statement---no details, nothing about
> natural selection. It simply isn't required to provide a true account. So
> please stop making the all or nothing fallacy.
>
> And I would note that such a statement is not beyond the mental
> capabilities of the neolithic farmers (indeed spontaneous generation was a
> widespread belief). So, to me, the question is why DIDN'T God inspire
> something simple like that?
>
> Is God incompetent at communication?
> Is God powerless?
> Is God not God?
> Is God devious?
>
> To me, without a simple statement of what happened (out of the slime came
> life--NOT A MODERN SCIENCE BOOK-- I REPEAT FOR THE 10,000th time on this
> list, NOT A MODERN SCIENCE BOOK) , it exposes God to these charges.
>

Glenn,

If you'd stop shouting in captial letters like you do and actually read what
I said, you will see that I said:

unless you have a Bible that provides a complete scientific revelation, and
I think we're all agreed that the Bible isn't supposed to be that.

I was agreeing with you and everyone else that the bible isn't supposed to
be a modern science book! So you really don't need to remind me in capital
letters that you've said it 10,000 times on this list. I know. I was
acknowledging that. (Though a simple, true statement like "many times"
might be more appropriate than over-exaggeration - you'll get the reputation
of being an even poorer communicator than God!).

"out of slime came life" a statement that is accomodated to 21st century
science that is a falsifiable scientific statement. What if life came out
of a meteor that fell on the earth, or something else that wasn't slime? I
think you might argue that by the time you got to the slime stage, there was
already life. You're just replacing one scientific statement with another.

Glenn, I am doing my best to try and grapple with your question. But if you
treat me like I'm an idiot I'll not bother any more.

Iain.

I guess it is easier for people to view my position as what you do, rather
> than think about the reality that God could have said something quite simple
> that would have been satisfactory and in line with modern science. By doing
> that, one doesn't really have to deal with the very hard issue. One can
> ignore it. But to do that, is not to think very deeply upon these issues.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Iain Strachan
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:12 PM
> On 6/14/06, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
> Glenn,
>
> If any sacred writing gives any account of creation, unless it either says
> "God made all this", or it gives a perfect revelation of the science that
> actually happened, it will be vulnerable to inferences being made ( e.g.
> about the age of the earth), which might later turn out to be factually
> wrong. Suppose it were possible to infer from a sacred text that the
> Universe was created around 13 billion years ago with a big explosion from
> which everything originated. Then suppose by the 22nd century, things
> change radically (as they have before in Physics), and a steady state
> infinite age model becomes accepted. Then that sacred text would be
> factually wrong according to the most up to date physics. Hence a Big Bang
> Bible would only of necessity be accomodated to 21st century physics, which
> could in principle be wrong.
>
> Glenn, I know this is a difficult issue for you, but I don't think there
> can logically be an answer to it, unless you have a Bible that provides a
> complete scientific revelation, and I think we're all agreed that the Bible
> isn't supposed to be that.
>
> Iain
>
>
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.